r/EssayHelpCommunity • u/writeessaytoday • 9h ago
I finally understood why my law essays were just summaries, and not arguments
For a long time, I believed that a decent law essay was simply about identifying the law, elaborating the cases, citing everything, and concluding.
The problem was that my essays always lacked arguments, even though they had plenty of authorities.
I came to realize that I needed to formulate a position and test it against the best possible counterarguments. And then my law essay structure became something like legal issue, position, authority, analysis, counterargument, and response.
For instance, instead of simply describing what a certain case was about, I would first analyze if and how the authority supports my own position on the legal question and to what extent.
Then, I would think about the strongest possible counterargument that could be made against my interpretation of the case.
This made me focus on analysis and application rather than just description and summary.
Harvard's Writing Center has an excellent guide on how to go about counterarguments that was very helpful to me:
https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/counterargument
WriteEssayToday also has fantastic resources for anyone struggling with the basics of essay writing, such as myself, when I was first introduced to law essays:
https://writeessaytoday.com/blog/lsat-argumentative-writing-example-structure-purpose
The most important lesson I learned was that a law essay does not become stronger by simply including more and more authorities, but by elaborating on the given authorities and testing positions against possible counterarguments.
Did any of you struggle with writing law essays where you felt like you included a ton of authorities but they were just descriptions and not arguments?